oihfedfhorigiojisdeffandomcom-20200214-history
Hawfefvgfb
I went on to describe one of the really juicy points of the paper: the difference between fidelity of a prototype and the resolution of a prototype. Fidelity is about the accuracy you believe it has to the final product. Resolution is the amount of detail you have to put into the prototype to convey purpose or believability. At this point, my friend said: I'll have to look at that again. I think we could all use another look at some great frameworks. My friend had a passing familiarity with this framework for prototyping. He recognized it when he saw it. But when he saw how deep it went, he knew that it could help his work. Making sure your team and your boss and your test subjects know what they are looking at, making sure you're clear on the type of feedback you're asking for and why... it's invaluable. Those people who say they use no process, that they just get the work done... honestly, I think that can be a recipe for disaster. When we work for others or with others, we need to have a clear plan, a map for the road we're going to take together, and how we're going to get there. It's not just clients that like to know when they're going to see round two and how much it's going to cost...employees like to know, too. People who say they have no process are lying. They have, at least, a heuristic, a rule of thumb, a method, an approach. The article on prototypes goes on to describe this space in some greater detail, clarifying that the goal of a series of prototypes is to point towards the "real thing" with greater fidelity, to begin to integrate these three distinct foci of prototyping activity. We can start at one of the poles, but as we work, we have to come towards the center. When we get to the center, to a prototype that represents what we really want to make real, we have a trail, a trail of all the prototypes we made and all the feedback we got on them. So we can be clear on why the thing is the way it is. My friend working on her portfolio was in a particular pickle, however. After years of rockstar designer-led design, they often had just one or two simple sketches, a rendering and a finished product. They often go straight into 3D CAD design after a quick sketching sprint and design in 3D. Any changes to the model are not preserved. They get it right and make what the client wants and what the designer can deliver: great design. In my consultancy experience, we would always present mid-phase options. Three to Five directions, often defined or arranged according to some user need or design strategy. Was this method better? To be sure, my friend has produced a hell of a lot more work than I have! But what they don't have is a story. When I tell the story of how my projects came to be, I have my process to refer back to. That's why I include storytelling as the last phase of the design framework I teach. Having a framework means you can look back on what happened in the design process and have clearer buckets for what transpired. Chunking is a great storytelling technique. Every story has a beginning, middle and an end, after all. Knowing those parts of storytelling help you tell better stories. Having a design framework doesn't just help you design better, it helps you communicate what happened better. And if someone is paying for your design work, I guarantee they will enjoy being on the inside of your process a bit more. Is process a lie? A bit. I don't have a head and a neck, really. My fingers are not separated from my hands. But it helps to have a set of functional definitions, rules of thumb if you will, to help guide the process and to help us see better. Adding a little bit of process to your process might help you shake things up a bit.